Large Majority of Americans Want to End Electoral College
Large Majority of Americans Want to End Electoral College
www.commondreams.org
Large Majority of Americans Want to End Electoral College | Common Dreams
257 comments
-
Cool. Can we also get moving on Ranked Choice Voting?
-
I'd take RCV over nothing, but STAR and approval are significantly better like the other user said.
Some reasons for approval
- Addition is the only math involved. So it is extremely easy to get live results during counting. It makes auditing votes extremely easy.
- It is dead simple to understand, so the least amount of voters will be confused by it.
A longer form explanation of some of the other stuff:
-
Approval voting sounds good.
One issue I see with the star system is that people tend to have preconceptions about star ratings. E.g. some people never rate 5 stars on principle or will rate something 3 stars without realizing that is a 60% rating. My point is I think you might see some weird skew in the results based on this.
-
I love how this video explains the differences between the voting methods. It's what made me prefer STAR over RCV.
-
This is the only issue worth campaigning on. Fuck everyone for not realizing it. We will never get this system under control if it continues to misrepresent what the majority wants. There is no amount of bargaining and compromise that will ever bring forth the change we need to stop global climate change. Ranked choice - for its simplicity. Star - for its utility. Etc. Etc. Make the debate strictly about how we will reform voting and push everything else to the end of the list.
BTW, I'm not asking politicians to do this. I'm ask you, the people, if you will make your voice heard and enshrine it with a government that truly represents you.
-
-
I remember being in 3rd grade and learning about the electoral college and thinking, "that's the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard of". Still true to this day.
-
I've had the same reaction learning about religion 😂
-
SAMESIES ❤️
-
-
Learning that it was so rich white people in the south could substitute the votes of newly freed black slaves with theirs is what got me.
All this shit is because they were too fucking nice to the slavers.
-
Okay guys stop up voting this! Simply let me assure you that I will upvote for you!
If you upvote this comment to 100, I will upvote the way you want me to upvote.
Actually I'll do you better! Look. I know these guys who can upvote. If you upvote my comment past 100, I'll have them vote for you just the way you telepathically have told me to upvote by up voting for me....what? Why would you even need to know me or my friend who hasn't even talked to you directly? That's crazy talk! I'm an upvoter, I upvote. They. My friends who can upvote are true upvoters too. Soon you won't even need to upvote at all! You can just go read all the shit we Upvoted for you! Yey! We call our selves the "Upvotlectoral" college. We learn algebra in this college too, but we never graduate...at least you don't know if we have graduated or not.
-
Then how do you stop urban concerns from completely trouncing rural concerns? Voters from rural areas have valid concerns which are largely opposite of urban voters. If you get rid of electoral college, candidates will campaign in major cities and that's it. Nobody else will matter.
For anyone downvoting me- you should know I'm a liberal-libertarian registered Democrat from Connecticut, who's very much against Trump and most of the BS today's GOP is peddling. I just don't think disenfranchising anyone who doesn't live in a city is the answer.
-
So the people in cities should just be worth less when they vote? It's a federal vote for a federal office, everyone in the country should count the same.
The individual states already have their own powers which make sure the federal government doesn't make decisions that are bad for those states. And each county and town have their own governments that pass local laws.
I've also heard this argument so many times but I haven't heard any actual examples.
-
How do you stop a majority of the electoral college from completely trouncing the concerns of the other states?
-
and what has that gotten us? rural communities are subsidized out the wazoo as the urban centers across America are strangled and starved. as the more powerful minority of people is catered too
-
As opposed to now where like 10 states are tossups and the rest are locked in?
-
You should read what the electoral college does, because that's not what it does.
-
Sure, then we can have another republican get elected against the will of the people. Clearly rural concerns are more important than preventing authoritarian idiots like trump from being able to undemocratically take power.
-
Cities matter more. Sorry, but that's the reality.
Cities are where people live. People matter.
Cities are where culture happens. Culture matters. You're not going to have a big art/music/anything scene in bumbleweed, NE because there aren't enough people there to constitute a scene.
Cities are where economy happens. Money moving around matters. There are more transactions per day in the corner shop by me than a whole week in some country town with 700 residents.
Rural people still have the Senate and local government. Their rep in the house (which should be expanded) also should speak up for their region.
Everyone deserves some minimum respect, but the idea that nowhere-utah is just as important as Queens is insane. A minority holding the majority garbage is not good. Especially when that minority seems fixated on terrible ideas like climate change denial and xenophobia.
-
That's what the Senate is for. Two senators per state regardless of population. Wyoming has as much of a say as California does.
-
-
The cities is where all the people are. What are these "concerns" that rural areas have that should override most of the concerns of the majority of people?
-
Almost like they could be represented in the house or the Senate, right
-
Even if the 10 largest cities all voted Democrat that would only account for 8% of the vote. And not everyone votes the same way in a city either. There are plenty of republicans voting in major cities but their vote doesn't matter because of the college. Long Island went to Trump. NYC still got 400,000 votes for Trump. All this means is more people get a voice.
-
Pretty sure the rural concerns trumped the urban ones in the last elections in the Netherlands.
-
-
-
That’s great but do an electoral college majority want to end the electoral college?
-
Yeah this headline is like "animals disapprove of farm"
-
Doesn't matter. Ending the electoral college would require an amendment, and amendments require 3/4 of states to approve them. Abolishing the electoral college benefits California and the smallest states that expect to always side with California no matter what, which doesn't get you to the 38 states required.
-
It would not. There is already a pact with a bunch of states that say once they have enough support they will put their electoral votes towards the popular vote of the country not the popular vote of their state. If enough states get on board the EC becomes powerless. Because the states determine how they vote.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
They are getting close. A couple more states needed for activation.
-
Yea you’re right. I just thought it was funny that a majority of Americans disprove of something that prevents a majority of Americans from being able to choose something
-
Wha?.. Math hard you go ungabunga? California population has 38 million. That's only 8 million more than Texas.
Also, voting wouldn't be by state anyway, so it wouldn't matter? Not all 38 million Californians will vote the exact same way.
-
-
-
Cool. Too bad it's never going to happen. The entire US political system is designed to prevent the will of the people from being enacted.
-
America Is Living James Madison’s Nightmare
Madison and Hamilton believed that Athenian citizens had been swayed by crude and ambitious politicians who had played on their emotions. The demagogue Cleon was said to have seduced the assembly into being more hawkish toward Athens’s opponents in the Peloponnesian War, and even the reformer Solon canceled debts and debased the currency. In Madison’s view, history seemed to be repeating itself in America. After the Revolutionary War, he had observed in Massachusetts “a rage for paper money, for abolition of debts, for an equal division of property.” That populist rage had led to Shays’s Rebellion, which pitted a band of debtors against their creditors.
Madison referred to impetuous mobs as factions, which he defined in “Federalist No. 10” as a group “united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.” Factions arise, he believed, when public opinion forms and spreads quickly. But they can dissolve if the public is given time and space to consider long-term interests rather than short-term gratification.
To prevent factions from distorting public policy and threatening liberty, Madison resolved to exclude the people from a direct role in government. “A pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction,” Madison wrote in “Federalist No. 10.” The Framers designed the American constitutional system not as a direct democracy but as a representative republic, where enlightened delegates of the people would serve the public good. They also built into the Constitution a series of cooling mechanisms intended to inhibit the formulation of passionate factions, to ensure that reasonable majorities would prevail.
The people would directly elect the members of the House of Representatives, but the popular passions of the House would cool in the “Senatorial saucer,” as George Washington purportedly called it: The Senate would comprise natural aristocrats chosen by state legislators rather than elected by the people. And rather than directly electing the chief executive, the people would vote for wise electors—that is, propertied white men—who would ultimately choose a president of the highest character and most discerning judgment. The separation of powers, meanwhile, would prevent any one branch of government from acquiring too much authority. The further division of power between the federal and state governments would ensure that none of the three branches of government could claim that it alone represented the people.
-
-
sorry, I asked the parliamentarian if we could do democracy today and he told me to go fuck myself :/
-
Everyone saying this can't happen and stuff but we already have started the process. There is a set of several states that signed a pact that make it vote for the majority. Can't think of the name of it but we only need several more states (not all of them) to meet needed electoral votes to basically bypass the electrical college.
-
-
As usual, Republican states won't adopt this. And you can expect Republicans to appeal this all the way to the Supreme Court if it ever does get adopted, which the current conservative majority will almost certainly bend over backwards to find "unconstitutional."
-
The thing is that the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is nothing until it’s all the way there. Having 95% of the necessary electoral votes has the same effect as 0. So there’s no reason for opponents to even care about it until it is within striking distance of the threshold. It seems to me that if we ever reach a point where it comes down to just a state or two, that legislation will be fought tooth and nail, not just in those last states, but there will be fights and legal challenges in states that have already entered the compact to reverse it too. And even if we manage to win the fight and it gets activated, we will still have to keep fighting in perpetuity because almost any state pulling out would undo the whole thing.
I’m not saying people shouldn’t even try, maybe some good comes of it regardless. It just doesn’t seem like a solution as much as a statement.
-
The real solution is to allocate delegates proportionally to how citizens vote, as is done in Nebraska and a couple other states. This achieves exactly the same purpose as the NPVC but is actually politically tractable.
No state has any incentive to assign its delgates to a person the citizens of the state didn't vote for. You can do what the NPVC does and make it contingent upon everyone playing along, but that requires everyone to play along and is incredibly tenuous. Even if it ever goes into effect, as soon as states allocate delegates to someone who wasn't the most popular candidate in their state they'll pull it, and the whole thing will fall apart.
Every state has incentive to allocate its delegates proportionally. That's exactly what people want. They want that more than winner takes all. It doesn't require a huge chuck of states to buy into it amd it isn't tenuous. But it accomplishes the same goal; if states allocate delegates proportionally to how they vote, then the most popular candidate gets the most delegates. If you're in one of the many states that has winner takes all, advocate to do what the few more democratic states have already adopted and are happy with.
-
-
-
Well yeah... The electoral college consistently lets a minority opinion override the majority, so of course a majority want it done.
Problem is that minority that gets their way today aren't going to yield if they can help it.
-
It's rule by the majority with respect for the minority not rule by the minority in the majority just take it.
Edit: at least it's supposed to be
-
What they tell you that it is -vs- what it actually is.
The political and economic system hides everything from us so that all we see is the individual and all these fragmented pieces -- and our education only reaffirms this viewpoint. It isn't until you educate yourself as a worker and understand the system from a class perspective (Marx) that you can begin see it in its totality for what it really is.
-
-
The one time we all could've used conservatives' hatred of minorities and they just let us down.
-
because in this case they're the minority
-
-
-
Large majority of voters want to change a system where the large majority of voters don't have as much say as a a minority of voters.
If the Democrats actually get the house and the senate this election, they should definitely looking into changing the voting system. It would be in their best interest.
-
Would require a constitutional amendment to do so. 2/3rds majority of the House and Senate and then ratification by 3/4ths of all state legislatures to outright remove it.
Or the interstate voting compact which just needs a couple more states. But that's a less direct mechanism that keeps the electoral college intact, just changes the way electoral votes are distributed.
-
I feel like it would be more realistic to repeal the Apportionment Act of 1911. At the very least, it would correct the massive inequality in congressional apportionment. It would also increase the number of electors in the largest states, which would mostly benefit democrats.
-
Yes and no.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
The NPVIC may work to get around the electoral college without amending the constitution. It would still be FPTP which wouldn't be great. But it would at a minimum be an improvement, because it would do away with swing states, red voters stuck in blue states, and blue voters stuck in red states.
-
There are still some other things that can be done federally to help. If they change the size of the house (determined by legislation not constitution), it also changes electoral votes for states. Electoral votes are based on house + senate seats per state
On its own that makes the electoral college much closer to representing the population of each state
I would also presume it likely would also make the popular vote compact way closer or cross the needed majority of electoral votes. Though I haven't done or seen any analysis on that directly so not 100% sure because the ways seats are appropriated can be funky and non-linear
-
While dramatic things like making the senate votes proportional or abolishing the electoral college might require a constitutional amendment, the text is silent on plurality vs RCW or what have you.
Congress could mandate a switch with a simple law, and point to their power to ensure democracy, same as the post bush v gore laws that mandated electronic voting machines.
-
Or the interstate voting compact which just needs a couple more states.
Of course, it's already got every state that benefits from it being passed, and a few more that signed on but only benefit so long as their preferences are always in line with California. Which collectively isn't enough for it to go active.
Now you've got to convince states that will both lose power and routinely get results out of line with their preferences to sign onto the thing that will do that.
...and once it goes active it will go to the courts where the argument will be whether as an interstate compact it has to be federally approved or if the state's right to assign their electors as they please trumps that.
-
-
Don't the states choose the voting system for their particular state? If so, it will never happen.
-
As if Dems would do anything that could compromise their own power.
-
Democrats generally favor ending the electoral college, if nothing else because it would tend to make them win elections more due to the packing effect of NY and California and the tendency of rural states to get more votes per capita. In fact several states, pretty much all the solid blue states in the last couple of elections, have passed a compact to give all electoral votes to the popular vote winner.
-
Dems face an electoral cliff if they do nothing. In a few more cycles, it may be impossible to win the senate or the presidency, even with a majority vote behind them, due to too much power in small states.
-
-
-
Thing about the electoral collage is that it doesn't matter what the large majority wants.
-
The problem with a simple majority is it allows large states to completely dominate less populated states.
We are a republic, kind of like how the UK is a union of (at least) four countries each with its own government. We are 50 states each with its own government and the constitutional right to make it's own laws about matters not specifically delegated to the federal government (see the abortion rights debate).
The founding fathers established the electoral college as a compromise between electing the president in a vote by Congress and a popular vote. I would take an amendment to the constitution to get rid of it.
-
The founding fathers established the electoral college as a compromise between electing the president in a vote by Congress and a popular vote. I would take an amendment to the constitution to get rid of it.
They established it as a way to launder slave votes into presidential elections, as stated explicitly by the man responsible, James madison:
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-10-02-0065
There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections.
The electoral college exists because southerners were spoiled bitches who wanted more power than they deserved, then they threw a tantrum when they lost anyway (the Civil War), now they keep threatening and whining if they can't keep their unfair advantage while gerrymandering to hell.
I'd be fine with the EC, if we also denied the electoral votes of states that don't follow the constitution or ratify all the amendments (Mississippi still refuses to ratify the 24th banning the poll tax).
-
All this went out the window when they capped the number of representatives in congress. That took away popular vote power. Montana doesn't need 2 senators and a rep. North Dakota doesn't need 2 senators and a rep. California is getting massively screwed on their representative count. That state alone should swing legislation based on reps alone. It would lay bare the tyranny of the minority.
-
-
-
Ending the electoral college and changing to popular vote for the presidency is a very important goal and young people should commit to make it your life's work, because that's how long it will take to get a constitutional amendment done, and only if a sustained effort is made.
In the meantime we can also work toward other goals than can help:
- Expand the size of the House of Representatives. The population is now way too big for the number of representatives we have, each representing 1/2 to 3/4 of a million people or more, when the founders envisioned a ratio of 1 per 30,000. Obviously we can't achieve that ratio, but there are several good proposals out there to make it more fair.
- Statehood for Washington, DC and Puerto Rico (they deserve representation! and it would add 4 more senate seats).
Then there's our representation in the Senate. Our population is distributed very unevenly among the states which get two senators each. Each Wyoming senator represents less than 300 thousand people; Each California senator represents about 20 Million people (2017 figures). By 2040, 2/3 of Americans will be represented by 30 percent of the Senate, and only 9 states will be home to half the country's population [1]
What can be done about this? What about splitting the most densely populated states into 2 or 3 states? Highly unlikely to ever happen, but it's an idea. Then there's the idea of population redistribution. This is happening all the time anyway, but people could consciously choose to move into lower population states where their vote would count more (and cost of living is lower). With remote work much more acceptable these days, it should be easier for people with certain kinds of jobs to do, but it would also need investors choosing to start businesses in those states instead of always flocking to the high density states. There is a little bit of that happening but not much. Otherwise I don't know how this problem can be solved.
-
While we are at it, we should add 1 more state. That would give us 53, which is a prime number.
We would truly be one nation, indivisible....
-
Ending the electoral college and changing to popular vote for the presidency is a very important goal and young people should commit to make it your life’s work, because that’s how long it will take to get a constitutional amendment done, and only if a sustained effort is made.
for now, if you want to do something and don't want to think about the electorates, you can campaign for local voting reform in your state (which will have an effect on the electorates as well) plus then your state has better representation now.
-
I think a bigger component in making this happen is instituting ranked choice voting. Political parties are private institutions that have amassed entirely too much power over our country. Sure, we can vote but electoral college or popular voting and we still are stuck with a candidate selected by one of two private institutions. These private entities are able to control elected officials who stray too far from the party line. As long as large political parties control the candidates our vote holds less power.
-
Approval voting, not ranked choice. Easier to explain, solves the same problems at least as well and most voting machines already support it.
Combine it with every state assigning their electors in the same fashion as Maine and you're most of the way to what people want without needing to get 38 states and 2/3 of Congress to agree to an amendment. Just simple majorities in individual state legislatures that can be done piecemeal.
-
-
I dunno. I kinda think it’s cool that a state twenty times smaller than my own (Alaska, California) gets an equal share of say to my own. /s
-
We could also just make it irrelevant by expanding Congress radically. Adding back all the seats we missed when we froze the numbers in the 1940s. Even better, we were slipping on the ratio of representatives to people even back then so we could go back to the original ratio or something in between. That would be a max of around 10,000 representatives, but you would be far more familiar with your representative and they could do elections without the support of the economic elite or being rich.
That doesn't require an amendment and it functionally obliterates this tyranny of the minority.
-
We could also just make it irrelevant by expanding Congress radically. Adding back all the seats we missed when we froze the numbers in the 1940s.
or we could just do a CGPgrey and rework the math because we have computers now.
-
Yup, that too
-
-
This is insane but I like it
-
Insane, but modern technology makes it much more feasible today than ever before.
-
Proper representation shouldn't be so unthinkable. And we could achieve the idea of better representation with one or two thousand. We don't need to go to ten thousand yet.
-
-
This doesn't make the electoral college irrelevant, it just rebalances the votes per state so they're closer to proportional. California Republicans and Texas Democrats are still disenfranchised even if their states get a lot more votes.
-
Yeah but that last hurdle takes a lot more to get over and in the meantime we've done something we should have anyways.
-
-
Doesn't change the number of senators, sadly.
-
That was always the point of the system though. And if we need to 86 the Senate then having them constantly blocking the house provides that momentum. It would be a huge fight.
-
yeah no, that should be the same, unless you wanted the senate to hold a proportional amount of seating to the house for some reason.
The senate and house are two independent bodies, they work together, and at odds simultaneously, the point is that the senate is different.
-
-
-
Yes, please. This shit is so 1787.
-
Lol .... when has the will of the common people ever mattered to politicians who are beholden to the ultra wealthy.
I'm in Canada and we suffer from the same problem.
-
Lol … when has the will of the common people ever mattered to politicians who are beholden to the ultra wealthy.
The French Revolution leaps to mind.
-
-
Yeah, but only (rural) land here has any say, so whether most Americans want to do away with the EC is irrelevant. Only Republicans in rural areas should get to dictate the future of this country.
Turns out even that level of rigging is not enough for the traitorous Republican scum; they might be planning on having just enough states refuse to call the election and throw it to the House so their scum there can install the insane and incompetent donnie in the White House.
-
This is the kind of comment that we do not need here amongst the righteous. Of course you have a say, you have a vote. It doesn't matter which state, just fucking vote. The republicans are on their last leg, their only hope is that you give up and resign to your fate.
Don't. Don't give an inch. Go vote. Show them that we the people are still in power, and we will no longer stand for their corporate distopia.
-
I very much plan on voting (this being Colorado, I don't have to go anywhere, thankfully - and I can sit down and thoroughly read the ballot measures and so on and read about them, etc., and fill out at my leisure, then mail in. This is as it should be in every state.), just like most here on Lemmy (minus the bots and trolls). However, since I'm from Colorado, it turns out that voting for POTUS in Colorado is more or less a foregone conclusion.
In states like mine, that are not "battleground states", our vote counts very much less when it comes to POTUS. Same goes for things like representation in both the House and the Senate for states with larger populations. The House is EXTREMELY tilted for the reactionaries, and is way out of step with the voters, even though they did indeed vote.
So, yeah, voting is important. I plan on voting like my life depends on it, even though I'm not in a battleground state, because those other things on the ballot matter as well. You have to play to win, as the lottos are fond of saying. However, there is no good reason to pretend that the system is not seriously flawed in some very important aspects.
-
-
-
-
cool but this aint happening cause the us aint a democracy
-
What, and end the control and power the establishment has over you? Good luck
-
63% != Large Majority. If it did what would more be 70 = Really large majority 75 = Really really large majority 80 = Fricking huge majority 85 = Ludicrous majority 90 = BFM 9000 95 = Who said no 100 = Rigged
-
I mean, with the political environment these days, I actually agree with all of those joke titles.
-
-
Can’t beat it with people majority, need to have the land majority.
-
Where a county of 1000 dipshit rednecks have as much voting power as metropolitan sector of 100,000
-
-
Can't believe Americans have become so anti-education.
-
Given there are only two major institutions that are capable of winning under the current rules, one of the two institutions figured out it's advantageous not to have highly educated constituents.
Over the period of about two generations they've managed to rig it so that only the upper class can manage to get a fair education. So the poor malleable people will vote for whoever they're told to vote for, and the ultra-rich will vote for the side that is most advantageous to them.
In a time where we should be trying to get as much education into every living being that we can, degenerates are using a lack of education as a wedge to stay in power.
-
It's always been this way. But now they just can talk to each other and blast their views online.
-
-
I don't know much about the ins and outs of politics, but wouldn't modifying the electoral college to be bound by popular vote help?
Or if it were abolished, couldn't the popular vote be set to act as one vote per section, with separation in a way that is fair.
Just spit balling here, but it doesn't seem like going pop vote means we would have to drown out less populated areas with densely populated areas.
Am I wrong? Am I on the right track?
-
-
I'm conflicted on this. On one hand, there are clear problems with the electoral college situation right now, but on the other hand, getting rid of it means that the tyranny of the majority will become a bigger problem. It's unclear to me which is worse or how we can fix the latter.
-
-
-
Yeah no shit, it's doing the job it was intended to do.
-
They get all the votes. We get all the fucking ads! WTF!
-
It will be a cold, dark day, over my dead body, when New York City has more voting power than all of Washington state. I will fight people to the death to keep the electoral college. Get you're moronic facts straight, the Electoral keeps high population areas from forcing their ideals on the rest of the Nation, it also makes cheating harder. FIX THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE! Fine. But remove it and you give the ruling class the ability to add a billion votes nation wide and winning an election, instead of now where they cheat district to district. Just because it's becoming obvious your drug war baron might not win because people hate that she had jailed people for simple drug possessions, and she's as much a traitor to the Republic as Donnie T, you don't get to change the rules. GET A BETTER CANDIDATE WORTHLESS DEMOCRATS! Weak humans blame the system for their weak candidates, when it's them and their candidate that are to blame, not the system that rejects them.
-
All your arguments against it are the reason I want it. Isn't that fascinating.
-
You forgot the /s
-
Naw op definitely drank the Qoolaide
-
-
Who are you voting for?
Does it start with a Q and wear tinfoil on it's head?
-
-
The only reason they want a popular vote system is because it would have worked in their favor in 2000 and 2016.
The minute it goes against "their" candidate they'll scream to go back to the electoral college.
See the multi-state pact here:
https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/written-explanation
Currently passed in 17 states for 209 electoral college votes, it doesn't take effect until there are 270 accounted for.
But do you really think the residents of a state like Oregon, or Washington, or California will just be OK with their electoral college votes being passed to a popular vote winner who is a Republican?
Especially if that person failed to win their state?
-
But do you really think the residents of a state like Oregon, or Washington, or California will just be OK with their electoral college votes being passed to a popular vote winner who is a Republican?
Yes, because they won. People who favor democracy understand they won't always be in the majority, and that's OK bedause they aren't shitbags. People who only want the system to work in their favor are called Conservatives.
-
Is the suggestion here that the only people who support the electoral college are those who don't want the president to represent the majority of the voting population?
-
I think the argument boils down to the same one that created both a Senate and House of Representatives, which is does the US have allegiance to it's citizens or it's States.
-
No, the suggestion here is that the people supporting the popular vote are doing it because they got burned in 2000 and 2016.
Had it gone the other way, they wouldn't be agitating for it.
If Trump somehow wins the popular vote, but loses the electoral college, WA, OR and CA will be THRILLED.
-
-
It would be nice to implement stuff like one of the voting systems under the broader ranked choice voting umbrella first before getting rid of the electoral college.
-
257 comments